A public controversy has erupted within Tamil Nadu’s legal circles after retired Madras High Court Judge K Chandru accused sitting judge Justice GR Swaminathan of violating his constitutional oath of office. The accusation, made during a legal event organized by the advocates’ wing of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), has triggered a wider debate about judicial conduct, political affiliations, and the sanctity of the judicial oath.
Justice Chandru, known for his Dravidianist views, delivered the remarks while addressing an event titled “Protecting the Constitution and Supreme Court.” During his address, he alleged that Justice Swaminathan had acted contrary to the principles of the Constitution by participating in a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) function and making statements perceived as inconsistent with constitutional values.
Speaking at the event, he said, “That GR Swaminathan is a strange person, why do I say that? According to this constitution, when we become judges, we have to take an oath.
What is that oath? It is in the third article of the constitution. It says I have accepted this constitution without any like/dislike, you can say it in the name of God, you can say it in the name of anyone you want, but I will uphold this constitution without any like/dislike, without any hatred, to the best of my knowledge, I shall uphold the constitution without fear or favour, without ill will, is what they say. Then if the constitution is to be accepted, those who do not accept it are becoming judges. This same Swaminathan attended an RSS advocates meeting in the state of Haryana and says, what new law is this? They are saying that it is a copy of the Government of India Act of 1935 and that there is nothing original in it. The person who says so is a High Court judge. We can give our answer to those who speak in such a lowly, petty and derogatory manner about Dr. Ambedkar.”
He continued, “But Dr. Ambedkar himself spoke in the Constituent Assembly in 1948 – I am not ready to answer them if they say that this is a copycat book. Whatever I tell them is a waste of my time. Are the fundamental rights that can exist in this country in the 1935 Act? Is there an abolition of untouchability? The government will not discriminate on any grounds. They have said that they will not discriminate on the basis of language, religion, gender, birthright, or place. Is that in the 35th year of the Act?” He said that I do not want to answer all this. But if a judge speaks on stage against the oath he has taken, we still have left him alone. No action was taken against him. Someone threw a shoe and action was taken against him. He has continuously spoken against the constitution. He has spoken in another place – If the demographic ratio between Muslims and Hindus is not the same as it was when India gained independence in 1947, then we should change this law. We should scrap this constitution if the same proportion of the population is not maintained. Our Home Minister also said the same thing last week. He says that this country is a Hindu majority country and if Muslims population is increased in proportion to the population, this is unacceptable. Then Amit Shah and Swaminathan are speaking in one voice. We are just laughing and moving on. What we are saying is that today the judiciary is being saffronized.”
He added, “Where there was one judge, today there are seven or eight judges. He writes a verdict that lying on “echai ilai” is a fundamental right of scheduled caste people. He wrote that if a scheduled caste person rolls over the banana leaf that was eaten on by Brahmins, then they will get to go to heaven. This is a fundamental right based on religion. Two judges have already banned it. Similarly, there is a temple called Kukke Subramania in Karnataka. There also they do this – rolling on leaves where people ate. Mayawati filed a case in the Supreme Court and it was banned. The person who said that rolling on banana leaves that was eaten on is a fundamental right and a religious right is now a High Court judge. That is why I say, this is an act that has made us think. We should take this thought to an ideological struggle. We cannot allow those who abuse the Constitution, criticize, and criticize Ambedkar’s talent on such public platforms. That is why I say that beyond this, we should prepare for a big struggle. I see the protest that has been launched on Thiruma today as part of that struggle. No one condemns it. They are issuing some kind of statement.”
Justice Chandru said that a High Court judge is required to uphold the Constitution “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,” and claimed that Justice Swaminathan had violated this oath. He described the sitting judge as a “strange person” for allegedly making remarks against the very Constitution he had sworn to protect.
Under the Third Schedule of the Constitution of India, a judge of the High Court takes an oath to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” to “uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,” and to discharge duties “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” The oath is intended to ensure absolute neutrality and loyalty to constitutional principles.
The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, prohibits judges from being members of or having links with political parties. It also advises judges to avoid actions that might give rise to a perception of political bias or affiliation.
The fact that Justice Chandru made his comments at a VCK-organized event has also drawn attention, as the party is known for its strong anti-Hindu stance and political activity. The setting has led some within the legal community to question whether his remarks might themselves risk politicizing judicial discourse.
Who Is ‘Justice’ Chandru?
Former Justice of Madras High Court, Chandru, who has been at the center of controversy following his involvement in the Dravidianist propaganda movie ‘Jai Bhim’, known for his vocal opposition to the central government and his strong alignment with the DMK. His political views and support for Dravidian ideologies have often led to criticisms, particularly his proposals aimed at eradicating caste distinctions in schools. Under the guise of his role in the ‘One Man Commission,’ Chandru controversially recommended measures that appeared to specifically target Hindu practices among students, such as the removal of spiritual symbols like the sacred ropes tied around their wrists, wearing Vibuthi among others.
He has made casteist and sexist remarks about Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in his social media posts.
In a Facebook post, former Judge of the Madras High Court had commented that Annamalai is making a route for a Rajya Sabha seat through Karnataka just like “Oorugaai Ammaiyaar” – a casteist and a sexist reference to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s Brahmin and woman identity.
Oorugaai Ammaiyaar in Tamil means “a woman who makes pickles”. This reference is used because it is said that women from Tamil Brahmin community make good pickles.
It is not just a casteist reference but is also sexist and highly misogynistic that indirectly implies that women from Brahmin commmunity are good for only making pickles.
Following this, many on social media called out the casteist and sexist mindset who had once wielded the pen of justice.
(Source: Supreme Today AI)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.